Lord Drayson: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Derek Twigg) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 19 July, my predecessor, the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), announced the publication of an independent report on the errors made in administering the Government's ex-gratia payment scheme for former Far East prisoners of war and civilian internees. The report, prepared by Mr David Watkins, was based on a detailed and thorough investigation of how inconsistent criteria came to be used in deciding payments to former civilian internees; this included consultation with the key affected parties. At the time of its publication, the Government welcomed the report and made it clear that they would take time to consider further the detail of the recommendations.
	In responding to the report, the Ministry of Defence has consulted the other departments responsible both for developing and implementing the scheme in 2000-01 and for now providing guidance on the development of new policy. We have also consulted the representative organisation for civilian internees, ABCIFER, and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The report made some 13 recommendations. Steps had already been taken since 2000 that addressed many of the shortcomings. These occurred quite independently, as part of the Government's work on better regulation and better policy making. Nevertheless, the recent reshaping of the FEPoW scheme in particular was able to benefit from the emerging recommendations and we are doing work to take them into account in the wider context of a wider review of the department's guidance on policy making.
	I have today placed in the Library of the House our detailed response to David Watkins's recommendations.
	I would like to thank Mr Watkins for his thorough investigation and comprehensive report and to acknowledge the major role played by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Public Administration Select Committee in scrutinising the administration of the scheme and helping us to identify and resolve the errors within it. Finally, I would like to give credit again to Ron Bridge, the chairman of ABCIFER, for the enormous amount of painstaking work that he has put into the process.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Work and Pensions (James Purnell) has made the following Statement.
	I am pleased to announce that there will be no increase in the general levy rates for the Pensions Regulator for 2007-08. Rates will remain at the 2005-06 level as set out in the table below.
	The general levy meets the cost of the Pensions Regulator, whose objective is to protect the benefits of members of occupational and private pension schemes; to reduce risks that lead to calls on the pension protection fund; and to promote and improve understanding of the good administration of work-based pension schemes. It also meets the cost of the Pensions Ombudsman and the Pensions Advisory Service, which provide scheme members with help, advice and information.
	
		
			 General Levy Rates for 2007-08 
			 Number of Members Occupational Pension Levy Personal/Stakeholder Pension Levy 
			 2 to 11 £24.00 per scheme £10.40 per scheme 
			 12 to 99 £2.50 per member £1.00 per member 
			 100 to 999 Max (£1.80 per member, £250) Max (£0.70 per member, £100) 
			 1,000 to 4,999 Max (£1.40 per member, £1,800) Max (£0.60 per member, £700) 
			 5,000 to 9,999 Max (£1.06 per member, £7,000) Max (£0.40 per member, £3,000) 
			 10,000+ Max (£0.74 per member, £10,600) Max (£0.30 per member, £4,000)

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety (Tony McNulty) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Last July, the Home Secretary announced his intention to review the criminal justice system to ensure that there was the correct balance in favour of the law-abiding majority and the victim, and to ensure that offenders are properly and effectively punished.
	The police service is the point of entry to the criminal justice system, and we must have proportionate and balanced powers to allow the investigation of crime and criminality and sufficient enforcement powers to deal with those who break the law.
	The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 was introduced to standardise and professionalise police work. It provides a core framework of police powers and safeguards around stop and search, arrest, detention, investigation, identification and interviewing suspects.
	However, PACE has been subject to continued change since it was first introduced. There is now a need for rationalisation. We know from stakeholders and practitioners that PACE has become unduly complex and bureaucratic.
	That is why the Government are announcing today the formal launch of the review of PACE. This is a major and significant programme of work examining one of the fundamental statutes of our criminal justice system. The review will look to examine how we can:
	refocus the investigation and evidence-gathering process on serving the needs of the victim and the witness;reduce unnecessary bureaucracy;help to tackle reoffending; raise police efficiency and effectiveness; andincrease the ability of police officers to be engaged in operational front-line activities.
	Rather than setting out detailed ideas that we may have, we are inviting stakeholders, practitioners and the public to let us know what they consider needs to be changed, amended or introduced. Based on the results of that exercise, we will discuss the findings from the public consultation through bilateral meetings, group meetings and forums with stakeholders and practitioners. When that exercise is completed around the end of 2007, we will put the final proposals back out to public consultation. That is expected around spring 2008.
	I very much hope and welcome constructive proposals and suggestions on what we can do to help to make sure that victims and witnesses are at the heart of the system and that their interests are paramount.